*The so-called “Wizard” of Oz as depicted by Gregory Maguire in Wicked.
*The Joker.
*Iago.
*Bill Sykes.
*The consumate politico called “The Smiler” from the Transmetropolitan graphic novel series.
*Watchmen’s Adrian Veidt.
*Patrick Bateman (American Psycho)
*The Judge, from Red Meridian by Cormac McCarthy.
*Smooth-talking sociopath Troy Louden in Charles Willeford’s Sideswipe.
But the hands-down winner, I think, is Dudley Smith – the charismatic, brutally murderous, and seemingly unstoppable rogue-cop-from-Hell who figures prominently in several of James Ellroy’s best novels.
Daleks have to be in with a shout. Designed to have no feelings or empathy whatsoever. Designed to work towards a single, inflexible goal: mastery of the universe. Designed to simply exterminate any opposition, without reason, qualms or guilt.
All the major bad guys from the Wildcards series as published back in the 80’s. Reading that series often made me feel like I had been dipped in slime.
I think that Cthulhu isn’t really evil, so much as so far beyond humanity that he doesn’t regard us as worthy of notice. If you step on an ant, are you evil?
I was going to go with Vader, but the teddy bear really does give Mr. Burns the prize.
Their creator Davros is just as bad. He knew what destruction they would cause in the future and continued with them anyway even to the destruction of his own people.
On the destruction of his people:
Henchman: The whole of the Kaled people, you would go that far?
In the “Stolen Earth” and “Journey’s End” episodes he creates a “reality bomb” which will destroy the entire universe. (just in case you haven’t seen it)
Se this you tube video for further proof of his irredeemable evil.
Veidt saved the world from nuclear annihilation. You can argue that he did so immorally, or that he did so only so he could profit from the results - but evil? No way.
With this short paragraph you have opened up the debate on ends versus means as a definition of evil. (Even assuming that Veidt’s plan was necessary and successful.)
My vote is for the Marquise de Merteuil in Les Liaisons dangereuses. True, she did not blow up planets, but she did destroy peoples lives just for the fun of it.
And don’t forget that Obi-Wan let him burn up in lava, slowly, rather than either saving him and trying to redeem him, or giving him a quick death. Jedi may not kill the helpless/their prisoners, but that Jedi sure wasn’t being good that day either. Way to treat a former student.
Meanwhile, Palpatine’s methods were brutal, but when you think of what Obi-Wan did, it could be an easy jump to the conclusion that the Jedi were just a bunch of power-hungry hypocrites. Anakin was pretty self-centered, and the series of “betrayals” by the Jedi (including keeping him from roles that he wanted to be in) contrasted with the “help” that Palpatine was giving him. Seen that way, it wouldn’t be hard to believe that the Jedi needed to be destroyed.
Sure. But DLux will have to explain why “the ends don’t justify the means” definition of evil classifies Viedt as the “most evil” when there are dozens of “evil in every conceivable way” characters out there. It dilutes the very meaning of the word.
I had the impression that she was just a “bad seed”. Some people mature early, Abigail evil’d early. Certainty by the time the play opens, she’s a conniving witch.
Not to mention the end of Start Of Darkness, where he makes Redcloak murder Right-Eye so that Redcloak will never be able to admit to himself that this might be a bad idea. Those last pages had more evil and malice in them than some fantasy villains have over an entire book.